grandavebridge.codot.gov...Steamboat Springs, District 6 . Douglas E. Aden, Vice Chairman Grand...

Transportation Commission of Colorado Meeting Schedule and Agenda

May 15 & 16, 2013 4201 East Arkansas Avenue

Denver, Colorado

Gary M. Reiff, Chairman Englewood, District 3

Trey Rogers Denver, District 1 Ed Peterson Lakewood, District 2 Heather Barry Westminster, District 4 Kathleen Gilliland Livermore, District 5 Kathy Connell Steamboat Springs, District 6

Douglas E. Aden, Vice Chairman Grand Junction, District 7 Steve Parker, Chairman Durango, District 8 Les Gruen Colorado Springs, District 9 Gilbert Ortiz, Sr. Pueblo, District 10 Steven Hofmeister Haxtun, District 11

THE CHAIRMAN MAY ALTER THE ITEM SEQUENCE OR TIMES The times indicated on the Commission agenda for each agenda item are approximate and subject to change. Generally, upon the completion of each agenda item, the Commission will immediately move to the next agenda item. However, the order of agenda items is tentative and, when necessary to accommodate the public or the Commission's schedules, the order of the agenda items is also subject to change. Documents are posted at http://www.coloradodot.info/about/transportation-commission/meeting-agenda.html no less than 24 hours prior to the meeting. The documents are considered to be in draft form and for information only until final action is taken by the Commission. Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:30 a.m. Regional Transportation Committee (DRCOG)

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:00 a.m. Efficiency and Accountability Committee Meeting, 12:00 p.m. HPTE Board Lunch Meeting, Room 225 1:00 p.m. High-Performance Transportation Enterprise Meeting, Auditorium 2:00 p.m. Asset Management Committee 3:00 p.m. Statewide Plan Committee

http://www.coloradodot.info/about/transportation-commission/meeting-agenda.htmlhttp://www.coloradodot.info/about/transportation-commission/meeting-agenda.html

Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:30 a.m. Breakfast Meeting 9:15 a.m. CBE Workshop: Prioritization Plan Update 9:45 a.m. RAMP Workshop 10:45 a.m. Workshop: Relocation of Region 4 Headquarter facilities 11:15 a.m. DBE Committee 11:45 a.m. Working Lunch:

Discussion with State House and Senate Transportation Committee Chairs

• Senator Heath • Representative Tyler

12:15 p.m. TIGER V Applications Workshop 1:00 p.m. **BREAK** Clear Auditorium for Room Re-Set TRANSPORATION COMMISSION MEETING 1:15 p.m. 1. Call to Order, Roll Call 1:15 p.m. 2. Audience Participation; Subject Limit: 10 minutes; Time Limit: 3 minutes 1:25 p.m. 3. Comments of Individual Commissioners 1:25 p.m. 4. Executive Director’s Report 1:30 p.m. 5. Chief Engineer’s Report 1:30 p.m. 6. HPTE Director’s Report 1:35 p.m. 7. FHWA Division Administrator Report (John Cater) 1:35 p.m. 8. STAC Report (Vince Rogalski) 1:40 p.m. 9. Act on Consent Agenda:

a. b. c.

Resolution to approve the Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of April 17 & 18, 2013 (Herman Stockinger)………… Resolution to Approve the Adoption of Policy Directive 1900.0 Noise Mitigation Policy (Herman Stockinger)…………………………………… Resolution to approve an addition to the FY 2013 Over $50K Project List (David Wieder)………………………………

Page 1 Page 18 Page 23

d. e.

Resolution to approve the FY 2014 Over $50K Project List (David Wieder). Resolution to Approve Policy Directive 82.0 Implementation of FTA Regulations for a Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace (Mark Imhoff)………….

Page 27 Page 42

1:40 p.m.

10.

Discuss and Act on Resolution for approval of the 12th Budget Supplement for FY 2013 (Ben Stein)……………………………….

Page 47

1:45 p.m. 1:50 p.m. 1:50 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:05 p.m. 2:10 p.m.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Discuss and Act on the Resolution for the Approval of the TIGER V Application (Kurt Morrison)…………….………………………… Discuss and Act on the Resolution to approve the Intra-Agency Agreement between HPTE and CDOT regarding US 36 Concession Agreement (Michael Cheroutes) Update: Legislative Session Wrap Up (Kurt Morrison)……………………………………………. Other Matters Acknowledgements

• Twin Tunnels team – Winners of the 2013 FHWA Environmental Excellence Award

• White House Award – CDOT Mobile App

Adjournment*

Page 59 Page 62 Page 81

BRIDGE ENTERPRISE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 2:10 p.m. 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2:10 p.m. 2. Audience Participation;

Subject Limit: 10 minutes; Time Limit: 3 minutes 2:20 p.m. 3. Act on Consent Agenda:

Resolution to Approve Regular Meeting Minutes from April 18, 2013 (Herman Stockinger)…………………page 1

2:20 p.m. 4. Discuss and Act on 12th Budget Supplement FY2013 (Ben Stein)…………………………………………………..page 11

2:25 p.m. 5. Monthly Progress Report (Tim Harris)………………page 49 2:30 p.m. 6. Adjournment *The Chairman of the Transportation Commission makes every effort to follow the meeting times as published. The order and timing of the meetings and the agenda items are subject to change when necessary to accommodate the public’s or the Commission's schedules. All meetings are held in the auditorium of the headquarters building unless otherwise noted.

Transportation Commission of Colorado Transportation Asset Management Committee

Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 15, 2013

4201 East Arkansas Avenue

Scott Richrath, Branch Manager Transportation Performance Branch

Les Gruen Kathy Connell District 9, Colorado Springs District 6, Steamboat Springs

Heather Barry District 4, Westminster

Tim Harris Debra Perkins-Smith, Director Chief Engineer Division of Transportation

Development

All commissioners are invited to attend this Committee meeting.

1. Report Out from Commissioner Gruen – 5 minutes

2. Approve February 20, 2013 Minutes – Commissioner Gruen

3. Surface Treatment List and Program – Tim Harris

4. Asset Management Updates – Scott Richrath

o Risk-Based Asset Management Plan

o Multi-Asset Management System Phase III

o Policy Directive 14 Asset Management Goals and Targets

o Asset Management Policy and/or Procedural Directive

o Drivability Life

o NHI Workshops

o Roadway Surface – Surface Treatment

o Fleet Management

THE AGENDA MAY BE ALTERED AT THE CHAIR’S DISCRETION

05/10/2013 Page 1 of 2

ASSET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES

Date: February 20, 2013

Committee Members Attending: Commissioner Gruen, Commissioner Connell, Commissioner Barry

Others Attending: Commissioner Reiff, Commissioner Peterson, Commissioner Gilliland, Debra Perkins-Smith, Tim Harris, Scott Richrath, JoAnn Mattson, Scott McDaniel, Tony DeVito, Dave Wieder, Bill Schiebel, Ben Stein, Rich Sembrat, Roy Smith, Mark Nord, David Fox, Marcella Broussard, Ty Ortiz, Steve Rudy (DRCOG), Randy Jensen (FHWA), Vince Rogalski (STAC)

Minutes: • Opening Discussion:

Commissioner Gruen welcomed attendees to the Asset Management Committee meeting. He noted the memo he wrote to Scott Richrath thanking staff for their hard work, and he asked staff to take a moment and reflect on how asset management can assist with doing the job more effectively. Dave Wieder shared his appreciation for the advances in the fleet equipment management system. Tim Harris noted that asset management has helped to break down the cylinders of excellence at CDOT, and stated that asset management is becoming a way of life and not just part of the setting the FY14 budget.

Commissioner Gruen thanked both for their comments and said that asset management is about getting the most for our dollars. The key now that we have started to use asset management is to now link it to project selection. Commissioner Connell noted that it’s important to be able to show measureable change. Commissioner Gruen stated that although this is the last meeting of the committee for a while, staff must document the process and link asset management to project selection. Debra Perkins-Smith added that asset management is good business sense, and that as the work has been done a ‘parking lot’ of improvements to the analysis has been identified, so this work will continue to improve going forward.

Commissioner Reiff requested a report back to the Commission on the linkages between asset management and project selection, to provide context to the decisions the Commissioners make, and a link between policy and outcomes. Commissioner Gilliland stated that the work done so far is valuable and we need to keep going. The work supports the hard decisions the Commission needs to make. Commissioner Connell noted that work should not stop because the committee is not meeting monthly, and suggested that the committee meet quarterly. Commissioner Peterson said that as chair of the Statewide Plan Committee the work done by the Asset Management committee has been invaluable.

Scott Richrath shared that staff’s work on asset management will continue for several reasons, including the MAP-21 requirement to develop a risk-based asset management plan. Staff is committed to having a strategy for developing the asset management plan in place by June 30, and will bring a draft of the strategy to the Asset Management committee at the next committee meeting, currently scheduled for May.

• Presentation: Scott R. presented staff’s recommendation on the distribution of RAMP Asset Management dollars for FY14 among the various asset groups, coming out of a January 2nd workshop led by Executive

05/10/2013 Page 2 of 2

Director Hunt. Staff determined during the workshop which programs were eligible for RAMP funding, and then completed a few rounds of the Delphi technique to come to consensus. Scott R. reviewed the surface treatment, bridge, ITS and fleet equipment performance slides showing expected performance with and without RAMP funding. He then provided an overview of culverts, tunnels, rockfall mitigation and real estate (buildings), and Committee members were able to ask questions of the asset managers to clarify the benefits of additional funding.

Commissioner Gruen noted that when the Asset Management committee convened last fall buildings were considered and determined to be too much to take on initially, but that we need to get our arms around real estate next year. Commissioner Reiff noted that in government, buildings are not part of the mission and do not receive a lot of attention.

• Delphi Chart: This chart shows the staff recommendations from the January 2nd workshop:

• Next meeting:

Asset Management Committee is scheduled to next reconvene in May, 2013.

1

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 TO: Colorado Transportation Commission FROM: Scott Richrath, Transportation Performance Branch Manager SUBJECT: May Asset Management Committee Meeting DATE: May 15, 2013 Purpose This memorandum summarizes the discussion planned for the May meeting of the Colorado Transportation Commission Asset Management Committee. There are four attachments in support of this meeting:

(1) the minutes from the February Committee meeting, and (2) Surface Treatment Program, and (3) CDOT Risk-Based Asset Management Plan (RB AMP) Development Strategy, and (4) Asset Management Updates.

Action Requested During the Committee meeting, staff will ask for input on the (attached) CDOT Risk-Based Asset Management Plan (RB AMP) Development Strategy document. The Division of Transportation Development is required to develop this strategy by June 30, 2013 as an FY13 CDOT Top Priority. If Commissioners wish to provide input after the May Committee meeting please send comments to Scott Richrath at [email protected] by May 31, 2013. The Asset Management Committee is asked to provide input to the Statewide Planning Committee on targets for three categories: pavement, bridge and maintenance levels of service. The Statewide Planning Committee is scheduled to meet the afternoon of May 15. Background The Transportation Commission Asset Management Committee held its first meeting in September and over the next several months developed recommendations to the Transportation Commission for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget that starts on July 1, 2013. It also developed funding allocations for FY14’s Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships Program 1. How financial resources are allocated to the transportation assets has been based on direction from the Transportation Commission in the form of the goals and objectives specified in Policy Directive 14, currently under discussion in conjunction with the Statewide Plan and MAP-21. Surface Treatment List and Program As requested at the April Transportation Commission meeting, the surface treatment projects for FY 14 were reviewed and revised to be consistent with Commission direction. The statewide surface treatment projects for FY14, which include both baseline and RAMP projects, is attached and presented with information on the surface treatment type. For low volume roads, information on the justification for the type of treatment is also attached.

mailto:[email protected]

2

CDOT Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Development Strategy MAP-21 requires all state DOTs to develop a risk-based asset management plan by April 1, 2015. Given the emphasis on asset management at CDOT staff has contracted with Cambridge Systematics and Redd Engineering to develop its initial plan by December 15, 2013, and make modifications after FHWA rules are promulgated. Cambridge Systematics is also FHWA’s consultant working with three DOTs (Louisiana, Minnesota, New York) to develop their initial plans and provide guidance to other state DOTs. CDOT’s plan will benefit from the work with these other states. The RB AMP Development Strategy is included in this packet for Committee review. This document describes the content and schedule for the plan that staff and the consultants are developing over the next several months, and presenting to the Committee in December. If Commissioners wish to provide input after the May Committee meeting please send comments to Scott Richrath at [email protected] by May 31, 2013. The Asset Management Updates attachment includes some prototypes on how to quantify risk at CDOT. Multi-Asset Management System Staff uses the Multi-Asset Management System (MAMS) to provide the Asset Management Committee with investment scenarios. MAMS phases I and II incorporated data from pavement, bridge, maintenance levels of service (MLOS), fleet equipment and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Phase III will begin to integrate buildings, tunnels, culverts and rockfall mitigation. Staff will also make several enhancements to existing asset analysis including net present value (NPV) assessment for certain asset categories. The phase III project will kickoff May 14, 2013 and conclude March, 2014. Asset Management in CDOT Policies Staff is working with the Transportation Commission Statewide Planning Committee to revise Policy Directive 14 (PD14). PD14 will highlight three asset management categories: bridge, pavement, and MLOS. The Asset Management Committee is asked to provide input to the Statewide Planning Committee on targets for those three categories. The Statewide Planning Committee is scheduled to meet the afternoon of May 15. Following a National Highway Institute workshop and in conversations with Senior Management, asset management staff is working with Government Relations staff to explore the benefits of policy and procedural directives specific to asset management. An excerpt from New Jersey’s policy directive is provided in the Asset Management Updates attachment. Other Asset Management Updates Staff continues to move forward on asset management in a number of areas, highlighted in the Asset Management Updates attachment. These areas are:

• Drivability Life for Pavement • National Highway Institute asset management workshops • Roadway Surface – Surface Treatment project integration • Fleet Management

The Transportation Commission Asset Management Committee invites all Commissioners to attend.

mailto:[email protected]

Shading used to show highway segments grouped into one project 5/2/2013Shading used to show highways lost in the redistricting effort

FY Region Highway BMP EMP Description Estimate Treatment Type Tier2014 2 025A 50.0 59.0 25C INTERCHANGE TO JCT SH69 WALSENBURG NORTH $12,257,499 2.5" mill and asphalt Overlay Interstate2014 2 025A 109.0 119.3 Pinon North $15,174,000 FY14 RAMP - 2.5" mill and aphalt overlay Interstate2014 3 070A 16.0 37.0 Loma to Clifton $27,000,000 FY14 RAMP - 3" asphalt overlay Interstate2014 3 070A 86.5 97.0 I-70 Rifle Slab Replacement $4,000,000 FY14 RAMP - concrete slab replacement Interstate2014 3 070A 147.0 147.0 I-70 Eagle Interchange Improvements - Add to RPP project for paving only $1,000,000 Add to RPP project for paving only Interstate

2014 3 070A 178.7 185.0 I-70 West Vail Pass $2,200,000 2" asphalt mill and asphalt overlay of east-bound drive lane only - 14 ft wide Interstate

2014 1 070A 203.9 213.5 I-70 EB Truck Lane $2,000,000 FY 14 RAMP - 2" mill and asphalt overlay, right east-bound lane only Interstate2014 1 070A 213.5 217.0 EJMT Resurfacing $2,500,000 Mill and stone matrix asphalt overlay Interstate2014 4 076A 67.0 77.0 Slab replacements $2,400,000 Concrete slab replacements, Advertised Accelerated project. Interstate2014 4 076A 149.0 165.5 NE COLO - Next I-76 Segment $25,000,000 RAMP FUNDING FY14 - Major rehab not reconstruction Interstate

Interstate Baseline $20,357,499Interstate RAMP $73,174,000

2014 3 040A 129.9 131.7 US 40 Steamboat East and West 2" mill and and asphalt overlay (in town) NHS - High Volume2014 3 040A 132.6 139.1 $6,000,000 2" asphalt overlay with spot leveling east of town NHS - High Volume2014 6 040C 296.3 297.5 Colfax Ave., Federal to Speer $2,000,000 2" mill and asphalt overlay NHS - High Volume2014 3 050A 42.2 46.3 US 50 Whitewater East $2,600,000 1.5" asphalt overlay, paving railroad approaches on SH 141 NHS - High Volume2014 2 050A 278.0 281.0 1ST ST TO Dozier Ave $3,696,066 2.5" mill and modified asphalt overlay NHS - High Volume2014 2 050B 377.4 381.2 THROUGH LA JUNTA $5,211,329 2.5" mill and modified asphalt overlay NHS - High Volume2014 6 088B 16.8 21.7 Arapahoe Rd., I-25 to Parker Rd $9,000,000 2" mill and 2.5" stone matrix asphalt overlay NHS - High Volume2014 2 096A 55.4 59.0 ARKANSAS RIVER TO US 50B THROUGH PUEBLO $5,493,784 4" mill and 2" asphalt overlay plus 2" modified asphalt top surface NHS - High Volume

2014 4 119B 44.2 44.6 Partner w/ Boulder-East of 36(Iris) $400,000 Local Agency project, partnership to perform resurfacing on our roadway NHS - High Volume

2014 4 119C 59.7 63.6 Boulder/Weld CL East $12,000,000Full Depth Reclamation and 9.5" Concrete or 6" Cold-In-Place Recycle with 3" Asphalt Overlay (CE Determination) NHS - High Volume

2014 6 121A 3.9 5.3 Wadsworth Blvd., Parkhill to Florida $9,500,000 2" mill and 2 - 2.5" aphalt overlay NHS - High Volume

2014 5 145A 0.0 9.3 SH 145 Cortez north to Dolores River Bridge $8,500,000Reconstruction south end and 1" asphalt leveling course plus 2" asphalt overlay north end NHS - High Volume

2014 5 160A 18.3 30.0 US 160/US 491 New Mexico to Towaoc (See 491A) $16,708,000 RAMP FUNDING FY14 - Full depth Reclamation with asphalt overlay NHS - High Volume2014 5 160A 71.0 81.3 US 160 Hesperus to Durango (west of Wildcat Canyon) $9,000,000 Determined after scoping NHS - High Volume2014 4 287C 339.1 342.0 Harmony South $4,200,000 3" mill and asphalt overlay NHS - High Volume2014 4 287C 347.7 348.3 Conifer to Willox $1,000,000 Composite Asphalt over Concrete NHS - High Volume

NHS - High Volume Baseline $78,601,179NHS - High Volume RAMP $16,708,000 (see 491A below also under this project: $19.708M RAMP total)

2014 5 160A 273.5 278.6 US 160 La Veta Pass $6,500,000 Leveling course and overlay (scoping underway) NHS - Low Volume2014 5 285A 5.2 6.3 US 285 in Antonito Reconstruction $5,000,000 Concrete reconstruction NHS - Low Volume2014 5 285A 6.3 11.0 US 285 Antonito North $4,500,000 Leveling course and overlay (scoping underway) NHS - Low Volume2014 5 491A 0.0 6.4 US 160/US 491 New Mexico to Towaoc (See 160A) $3,000,000 RAMP FUNDING FY14 - 1" Leveling course 2" overlay NHS - Low Volume

NHS - Low Volume Baseline $16,000,000NHS - Low Volume RAMP $3,000,000 (This segment constructed on same project with 160A above)

2014 3 006E 163.1 170.2 US 6 Edwards E & W $3,500,000 1.5" overlay; mill and overlay where curb & gutter exist Other - High Volume

2014 4 014C 139.5 147.3 East of I-25 to WCR 23 $12,500,0006" Cold-in-Place Recycle with 4.5" asphalt overlay or 2" Mill and 2.5" asphalt overlay (CE Determination) Other - High Volume

2014 1 119A 5.7 6.3 Black Hawk $1,000,000 asphalt overlay Other - High Volume2014 3 133A 66.0 68.2 SH 133 Carbondale: Added to RPP project for minor ml paving only $750,000 added to RPP project for minor mainline paving only Other - High Volume

2014 4 085L 279.8 301.0 Ault to Carr (Additional $4 million of FASTER funds for shoulders) $9,500,000Full Depth Reclamation with 3.25" asphalt overlay or 5" asphalt overlay (CE Determination) Other - High Volume

Other - High Volume Baseline $27,250,000Other - High Volume RAMP $0

2014 3 013A 79.0 88.6 SH 13 South of Craig $7,400,000 2" mill and asphalt overlay Other - High/Low Volume2014 1 024A 253.6 263.0 Wilkerson Pass-East $3,500,000 Thin asphalt overlay Other - Low Volume2014 1 036D 118.4 120.0 Jct SH 36 & Cabin Creek $500,000 Overlay and patching as needed Other - Low Volume2014 3 064A 28.0 38.0 SH 64 East of Rangely $4,200,000 1.5" asphalt overlay Other - Low Volume2014 1 103A 0.0 11.5 Jct I-70 - Jct SH 5 $5,000,000 Minimum of Mill and Asphalt Overlay Other - High/Low Volume2014 3 340A 1.0 7.2 SH 340 King's View Estates - Add to intersection improvements project $1,250,000 Chip seal with machine patching. Other - Low Volume2014 5 SH62 0.0 10.0 SH 62 MP 0.0 to 10.0 $750,000 Preventative Maintenance - Chip Seal Other - Low Volume

Other - Low Volume Baseline $22,600,000Other - Low Volume RAMP $0

2014 Other - Very Low VolumeOther - Low Volume Baseline $0

Other - Low Volume RAMP $0

2014 3 70 Fr N 172.8 176.0 Vail Interstate Frontage Roads 1.5" asphalt overlay; mill and asphalt overlay at curb & gutters.2014 3 70 Fr S 172.2 180.0 Vail Interstate Frontage Roads $4,600,000 1.5" asphalt overlay; mill and asphalt overlay at curb & gutters.

Interstate Frontage Road Baseline $4,600,000Interstate Frontage Road RAMP $0

FY 2014 Statewide Baseline $169,408,678Statewide RAMP $92,882,000

$262,290,678

Statewide Surface Treatment Projects for FY2014 - All baseline and RAMP projects

Highway Classification

SubsystemTotal System CL Miles Statewide

Percent of Total System

CL Miles to be Treated in FY14

Percent of Total Miles to be Treated

Percent of Subsytem Treated with FY '14

FundsInterstate 951 10.4% 90.2 34.1% 9.5%NHS 2483 27.3% 86.6 32.7% 3.5%Other 5671 62.3% 87.7 33.2% 1.5%Statewide 9105 100% 264.4 100.0% 2.9%* Interstate treatment per mile is less than NHS treatment per mile primarily due to 3 Interstate projects (rows 10, 11, 13 on attached

Highway Classification

Total System CL Miles Statewide

Percent of Total System

CL Miles to be Treated in FY14

Percent of Total Miles to be Treated

Percent of Subsytem Treated with FY '14

FundsInterstate 951 10.4% 90.2 34.1% 9.5%High Volume 2453 26.9% 108.2 40.9% 4.4%Low Volume 2895 31.8% 66.0 25.0% 2.3%Very Low Volume 2806 30.8% 0.0 0.0% 0.0%Statewide 9105 100.0% 264.4 100.0% 2.9%

FY14 Surface Treatment Distribution (Base + RAMP) By

FY14 Surface Treatment Distribution (Base + R

Statewide Classification Statistics

Statewide Classification Statistics

Treatment by Miles

Treatment by Miles

Predicted Condition Impacts from FY14 Surface Treatment Projects and FY14 RAM

Good/Fair Poor Good/Fair Poor Good/Fair Poor Good/Fair PoorStatewide 47% 53% 43% 57% 47% 53% 60% 40%Interstate 59% 40% 53% 47% 62% 38% 85% 15%NHS 65% 35% 60% 40% 64% 36% 70% 30%Other 34% 66% 31% 69% 33% 67% 55% 45%

2012 (Current)2013 Deterioration

(No Projects)2013 Predicted with

Project Impacts Commission Goals

MP Projects

FY14 Surface Treatment Plan Low Volume Project Justifications to the Chief Engineer (Based on Commission direction in April, current plan reduced low volume work from 31.1% to 15.9%.)

Region 1 State Highway 103 (MP 0.0 to MP 11.5) – this low volume project is requested for the FY 14 plan with the following justification:

1. This project will fill in complete work on the segment between I-70 in Idaho Springs and the current ongoing SH 103 construction project between MP 13.35 to MP 22.5. Targeted milling and HMA overlay are proposed.

2. SH103 projects have been coordinated with the County and their road reconstruction beyond MP 22.5 including widening for improved bicycle use.

3. This section of SH 103 has a RSL = 0 and an age = 32 4. SH 103 is actually high volume (> 6200 AADT) at the beginning MP 0.0 in Idaho Springs for a

short distance. 5. This section of SH 103 is the gateway to the Mt. Evans summit road (SH 5) from I-70. Mt. Evans

is a popular tourist destination producing high peak traffic volumes in months when the Mt. Evans Road is open to the public.

U.S. Highway 36 (MP 118.4 to MP 120.0) – this low volume project is requested for the FY 14 plan with the following justification:

1. This 1.6-mile segment of U.S. 36 is east of Byers and is immediately west of High Plains Raceway where associated RV and truck volumes are anticipated to continue to grow. Targeted patching and HMA overlay are proposed.

2. The proposed work section last received a single 2-inch overlay in 1971 (age = 42 years). 3. With significant pavement fatigue cracking (cracking index of 58), this pavement is in the worst

5% of fatigued pavements in the network. 4. Current condition is Poor-0 (RSL = 0). Six miles of Good condition roadway (RSL = 14) lies

adjacent to the west, and ten miles of Good condition roadway (RSL = 14) lies adjacent to the east. The requested project would make minor investment to bring this short severely deteriorated segment into safe, similar condition with adjacent highway segments.

U.S. Highway 24 (MP 253.6 to MP 263.0) – this low volume project is requested for the FY 14 plan with the following justification:

1. This project pavement is 15 years old with current RSL condition of Poor. It is surrounded by condition-Fair pavements. Thin maintenance HMA overlay (less than 1.5”) is proposed.

2. With significant pavement fatigue cracking (cracking index of 63), this pavement is in the worst 6% of fatigued pavements in the network.

3. With low-cost thin maintenance overlay, the pavement deterioration will be slowed and drivable surface condition prolonged in this cold, wet, high elevation (9,500’) location. Surface seal applications are much less successful under these climate and snow removal conditions.


1. This pavement dates from the 1970s and 1980s (age 30+years) and is full-depth asphalt constructed on clay soils. Transverse cracks at 30’ intervals have deteriorated significantly resulting large crack openings and pavement depressions. Pavement condition deterioration continues to accelerate due to water infiltration into very weak clay soils below the pavement and associated traffic damage to the surface pavement.

2. 3% of this project’s length has high traffic volume above 4,000 ADT. 3. Ride quality has deteriorated to IRI values of 300 inches/mile in locations. Average ride

condition puts this highway in the worst 11% for IRI in the state. 4. Region recommends 2” HMA mill and fill for 10-year pavement design under current design

manual using life cycle cost analysis for final treatment selection. Proposed design manual and pavement management system changes may allow for crack sealing and thin surface sealing under revised statewide guidelines. Final scope of this project may prescribe thinner treatment options per pending guidelines.

State Highway 64 (MP 28.0 to MP 38.0) – this low volume project is requested for the FY 14 plan with the following justification:

1. This pavement was constructed in the 1950s with overlays placed in 1967 and in 1994 (age 20 years). Last treatment was a chip seal in 2000. Current pavement condition classified as Poor-0.

2. Significant heavy truck traffic and age have resulted in significant consistent rutting and fatigue cracking. Ruts between 0.5 and 1.0 inch exist throughout the project. Transverse cracking on this roadway puts it into the worst 5% of the network for this type of distress.

3. Due to the locally severe rutting, truck traffic and load associated visual distress we do not recommend a chip seal at this time. We do recommend that an overlay be placed on the entire 10 miles in both directions. The overlay shall consist of a thin 1.5" of HMA SX (75) layer, placed over the existing asphalt, with binder type PG 58-28.

4. Small portions of the project may require full depth patching for existing areas of complete structural failure. See report: PC-18887_EastOfRangely_MatRec_04-30-2013.pdf

State Highway 340 (MP 1.0 to MP 7.2) – this low volume project is requested for the FY 14 plan with the following justification:

1. This project recommends a chip seal for this low volume pavement. Scope was revised to reduce cost from $3.3M HMA overlay in prior version of FY14 plan. Revised scope now calls for targeted machine patching followed by chip seal for $1.25M.

2. This project will coordinate construction with adjacent intersection project. 3. The project has fatigue cracking throughout with minimal rutting. Minor machine patching will

repair worst small sections.


1. This project recommends a chip seal for this low volume pavement. 2. Pavement distress levels are currently low and this low cost treatment is being applied in

accordance with preventive maintenance principles to ensure for long term performance of the existing pavement structure.

All National Highway System Projects – these low volume projects were requested for the FY 14 plan with the following justification: CDOT has historically designed roadways on the National Highway System in accordance with the Federal-Aid Policy Guide and 23 CFR 626. A National Pavement Design Review was conducted by the FHWA and found that CDOT’s established practices and procedures outlined in the Pavement Design Manual were acceptable. In 2008, research indicated that rehabilitated pavements were, on average, meeting their design life. With the growing importance of the NHS in MAP-21 programs and the increased national requirements for NHS condition reporting, CDOT intends to follow historic established design protocols until formal FHWA approval is given for the next version of CDOT’s Pavement Design Manual (July 2013). At that time, full design criteria for new thin surface treatments and clear direction on the permitted use of those guidelines for NHS and Interstate pavements will be established.

Asset Management Updates

CDOT May 15, 2013

Asset Management Overview

2

Risk-Based Asset Management

3

Risk Management: Defining Risk at CDOT

Note: Draft, still in development

Risk-Based Asset Management

4

Risk Management: Defining Risk at CDOT

Note: Draft, still in development

Multi Asset Management System

5

Schedule Phase I: June-Sept 2010 Develop framework of budget scenario tool at CDOT, which became the Multi-Asset Management System (MAMS) Phase II: July 2011 – Nov 2012 Incorporate Bridge, Pavement, MLOS, Fleet, ITS Phase III: Kickoff May 14, 2013, runs until March, 2014 Incorporate Buildings, Tunnels, Culverts, Rockfall, and enhance analysis for current assets

Multi Asset Management System

6

Highlights Pavement Provide support for Drivability Life analysis

Bridge Enhance to include individual structure analysis instead of overall deck area analysis

MLOS Enhance to analyze to overall Average Grade analysis instead of MPA Grade Analysis

Fleet Configure fleet NPV break-even analysis for large fleet equipment

ITS Enhance to include provisions for system expansion

Buildings Integrate CDOT’s real property building assets

Tunnels Integrate Colorado’s 3 primary manned tunnels

Culverts Integrate the 6,100 minor culverts and minor bridges

Rockfall Develop a risk-based approach for modeling risk associated with rockfall

Asset Management in Draft PD14

7

Bridge MEASURES: • Condition of on-system bridges. • Condition of NHS on-system bridges. • Condition of the total NHS bridges. • Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Goals

OBJECTIVES: • Maintain the percent of on-system total bridge deck area that is not

structurally deficient at or above 90%. • Maintain the percent of NHS on-system bridge total deck area that is

not structurally deficient at or above 90%. • Maintain the percent of NHS bridge total deck area that is not

structurally deficient at or above 90%. • Meet bridge goals in the Risk-Based Asset Management Plan.


8

Highways MEASURES: • Pavement condition of the Interstate System. • Pavement condition of the state highway NHS, excluding Interstates. • Pavement condition on the total NHS (awaiting federal guidance). • Pavement condition of state highway non-NHS roadways. • Pavement condition of the state highway system. OBJECTIVES: • Maintain pavement condition level of ___ % Good and Fair Drivability

Life for Interstates. • Maintain pavement condition level of __% Good and Fair Drivability

Life for state highway NHS, excluding Interstates. • Maintain pavement condition level of___ % Good and Fair Drivability

Life on the total NHS. (Placeholder; to be revised after federal guidance issued.)

• Maintain pavement condition level of __% Good and Fair Drivability Life for state highway non-NHS roadways.

• Maintain pavement condition level of __% Good and Fair Drivability Life for the state highway system.


9

Maintenance MEASURES: • Level of Service (LOS) for snow and ice removal • Overall Maintenance Level of Service (MLOS) for the state highway

system

OBJECTIVES: • Maintain an LOS B grade for snow and ice removal. • Maintain an overall MLOS B- grade for the state highway system.


10

Policy and Procedural Directives Example: New Jersey DOT Asset Management Policy, 2008


11

Drivability Life Analysis Update

Schedule:

• The mechanisms for drivability based condition assessment will be complete by May 15th.

• Tiered treatment type development will begin May 6th. e.g., system will direct chip seal and thin surfacing for lowest volume roadways

• Draft predictive analysis based upon DL and treatment tier priorities is scheduled for May 31st.

• Loading 2013 data and associated quality control efforts is scheduled for June and July

• Final 2013 condition maps and assessment reports in August.

• Full Drivability Life predictive analysis implemented in September.


12

Drivability Life Analysis Update

• Based upon the concept of Unacceptable Drivability • Condition where vehicles must reduce speed to compensate

for unsafe factors, navigate around potholes, or endure intolerably rough ride quality.

• Not synonymous with “impassable”

• Drivability Life is the number of years remaining before the drivability of a highway becomes unacceptable.

• Good/Fair/Poor definitions are as follows: • Good: >10 years Drivability Life • Fair: 6-10 years Drivability Life • Poor:


13

Drivability Life Analysis Update • Still modifying the distress thresholds that define “Unacceptable

Drivability.” Currently finalizing the IRI (smoothness) thresholds.

GOOD FAIR POOR RSL=0Statewide 29% 18% 53% 34%Interstate 36% 24% 40% 17%NHS 41% 24% 35% 17%Other 20% 14% 66% 49%

GOOD FAIR POOR DL=0Statewide 48% 34% 18% 4%Interstate 46% 39% 15% 2%NHS 53% 30% 17% 4%Other 46% 35% 19% 4%

2012 Good/Fair/Poor Distribution Based Upon Remaining Service Life

DRAFT 2012 Good/Fair/Poor Based Upon Drivability Life

Note 1 : These condition results are preliminary based on system work to date.

These DL=0 values identify the quantities of “Unacceptable Drivability”

Note 2 : As we refine the drivability criteria we expect the Good and Fair to decrease.


14

Drivability Life Analysis Update • Example Region 3 Good/Fair/Poor Maps

Old Remaining Service Life Map

New Drivability Life Map


15

National Highway Institute (NHI) Workshops Workshop #1: April 3 & 4 Introduction to Transportation Asset Management Attended by 26 staff from CDOT and FHWA Workshop #2: July 9 & 10 Development of a Transportation Asset Management Plan


16

Roadway Surface – Surface Treatment

• Kickoff meeting May 21

• Goal: • Document best alternatives for linking MLOS Roadway

Surface maintenance activities with Surface Treatment Projects.

• Anticipated benefits: • Improved data collection, • Improved reporting and data storage, and • Improved evaluation of cost and performance for different

pavement maintenance strategies.


17

Fleet Management • SAP enhancements have been implemented.

• Training work instructions are complete, and being refined for clarity.

• Maintenance staff are using new work orders, streamlined just for fleet equipment. Results: reduced computer time and improved accuracy and consistency.

• New reduced number of Preventative Maintenance Plans have been implemented.

• Maintenance Supervisors are able to pull new reports, use these reports to recommend replacements, look for trends in maintenance costs, and include projected repair cost in analysis.

April 30, 2013

Colorado DOT Risk-Based Asset Management Plan (RB AMP) Development Strategy

Draft

Colorado DOT RB AMP Development Strategy

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1

Colorado DOT (CDOT) has engaged Cambridge Systematics and Larry Redd to develop its Risk-Based Asset Management Plan (RB AMP). CDOT has reviewed the requirements of the MAP-21 Federal Authorization in conjunction with the agency’s current asset management efforts. The development of the CDOT asset management plan is anticipated to follow the outline set below, which incorporates federal recommendations to date and CDOT’s asset management program. The initial asset management plan will be complete in December, 2013. It is expected that the plan will be updated periodically to comply with emerging MAP-21 rules and to reflect CDOT’s growing maturity in asset management activities. This Strategy document provides the RB AMP outline, details regarding what information will be included in the plan, and the plan development schedule.

Table 1. Annotated RB AMP Outline

Section This Section will… Key Development Activities Required to Address Gaps

1. Executive summary • Summarize highlights and key recommendations from the RB AMP.

2. Introduction • Define the objectives of the asset management program. • Summarize the contents of the RB AMP – which assets, which

programs, time horizon (10 years), etc.

3. Value to Citizens • Present CDOT’s Mission and Vision, and describe the role of asset management in achieving them.

• Describe the role of the transportation system for the State. • Describe traffic growth and demand on the system. • Summarize items from CDOT customer surveys related to asset

management.

4. Asset Inventory and Condition

• Summarize inventory and condition of CDOT assets. • (See table 2 for specifics on which assets to include.)

• Develop templates for asset mgrs. to complete

5. Asset Management Measures and Targets

• Define performance measures (see table 2 for initial list). • Describe desired levels-of-service. • Define target values for the measures. • Illustrate the difference current performance levels and target levels.

• Develop targets for fleet and ITS equipment. • Determine how levels of service will be

presented.




6. Performance Measurement and TAM Practices

• Document the asset management planning process, including – Strategic management process – “Plan, Do, Check, Act”; – Allocating funds across programs and setting targets; and – Recommending and selecting projects and asset treatments.

• Determine approach for merging CDOT’s long-range planning approach and budgeting process with the asset management process (“Plan, Do, Check, Act”).

• Define process for utilizing management system recommendations in the regions to inform project selection.

7. Life Cycle and Other Systems/Models

• Define “lifecycle costs” (LCC) and explain why they are important (e.g., moving away from “worst first”).

• Describe the methodology used to address LCC in the RB AMP (e.g. incorporated into pavement model, and reflected in the selection of work strategies).

8. Risk Management • Describe CDOT’s risk management efforts, and explain how they relate to the asset management process.

• Provide a prioritized list of assets and risk types to include in CDOT’s systematic risk evaluation (systematic risks are events that could affect the transportation system).

• Provide an initial risk register that defines key programmatic risks (programmatic risks are events that could impede program delivery).

• Develop a framework for melding of risk and performance as part of the overall asset management processes.

• Prioritize assets and risk types for further risk assessment.

• Conduct initial programmatic risk workshop.

9. Financial Plan • Summarize historical budget and spending levels for asset management.

• Define the amount of funds expected to be available for asset management and describe where there funds will come from (funding sources such as HUTF).

• Provide a summary of how future funds will be allocated among assets.




10. Asset Management Strategies

• Describe key preventive maintenance activities, including typical timing and unit costs.

• Define other priorities (e.g., risk mitigation activities) that influence asset management decisions.

• Determine the types of strategies to include in the RB AMP.

11. Implementation Plan for TAM Process Enhancements

• Define priorities for improving TAM beyond Initial Plan delivered in December 2013.

• Present a schedule for the implementing these activities.

• Conduct gap assessment and interviews to identify and prioritize improvement activities.

• Develop an implementation schedule based on CDOT priorities and logical dependencies between the activities

12. MAP-21 • Provide an annotated list of MAP-21 requirements and illustrate how the RB AMP will address them. Following is an initial mapping (chapter numbers are in parenthesis): – Summary listing of pavement and bridges on the NHS, including

condition (Chapter 4) – Asset management measures and objectives (Chapters 2 and 5) – Performance gap identification (Chapter 5) – Financial plan (Chapter 9) – Life Cycle Cost management and risk management (Chapters 7

and 8) – Investment strategies (Chapter 10)



Table 2. Information to be Included in RB AMP by Asset

Asset Inventory Primary Condition Metric

Life Cycle and Other

Systems/Models

Programmatic Funding Level

10-year Performance Targets

Bridges count and deck area percent deck area classified as SD

Flagged as priority enhancement

from program distribution process

from PD 14 and program distribution process

Tunnels count (could break

down by manned and unmanned)

NA NA to be determined to be determined

Culverts count percent in bad condition NA to be determined to be determined

Pavements length and lane miles percent good/fair/poor

based on remaining drivability life

Incorporated into PMS models

from program distribution process

from PD 14 and program distribution process

Maintenance features (signs, guardrail, sign lighting, signals, attenuators)

NA LOS grades NA from program distribution process from PD 14

Fleet count % useful life Used to prioritize work from program distribution process

use condition versus funding curves and funding from program distribution

process

ITS count % useful life Used to prioritize work from program distribution process

use condition versus funding curves and funding from program distribution

process

Buildings count condition rating Flagged as priority

enhancement from program distribution

process NA

Rockfall Mitigation count of sites to be determined to be determined to be determined to be determined



Figure 1. RB AMP Development Schedule

Activity Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

NHI Intro to TAM Training Review TAM Documents and

Policies

Formulate Plan Outline

Deighton Demo

Finalize Diagnostic

Conduct Interviews

Gather Asset Information

NHI TAM Plan Training Define Measures / Targets

Review Self-Assessment

Perform Gap Assessment

Prioritize Improvements

Define PDCA Process

Integrate Risk Framework

Document Tradeoff Process

Schedule Improvements

Draft RB AMP Sections

Edit RB AMP Draft

Prepare Final RB AMP

Prepare Annual Report

Present RB AMP

Quarterly Reports

Transportation Commission of Colorado Statewide Plan Committee

Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 15, 2013 – 3:00-4:00 PM

4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, CO

Debra Perkins-Smith, Director Division of Transportation Development

Ed Peterson, Chair Steve Parker District 2, Lakewood District 8, Durango

Kathy Gilliland Douglas Aden District 5, Livermore District 7, Grand Junction

• Introductions – 5 minutes – Ed Peterson, Chairman • Approve March 20, 2013 Minutes – 5 minutes – Ed Peterson, Chairman • PD 14 – safety, bridge and mobility – 20 minutes – Debra Perkins-Smith • Plan Outreach – Summer meetings – 15 minutes – Sandi Kohrs • Program Distribution Process – 15 minutes – Debra Perkins-Smith • Adjourn

THIS AGENDA MAY BE ALTERED AT THE CHAIR’S DISCRETION

1

STATEWIDE PLAN AND TRANSIT AND INTERMODAL COMMITTEE MEETING

Date: March 20, 2013

Committee Members Attending: Commissioner Ed Peterson, Commissioner Kathy Gilliland, Commissioner Steve Parker, Commissioner Steven Hofmeister, Commissioner Steve Parker, Commissioner Doug Aden, Commissioner Kathy Connell, Commissioner Gilbert Ortiz, Sr., Commissioner Gary Reiff.

Others Attending: CDOT HQ: Don Hunt, Debra Perkins-Smith, Ben Stein, Sandi Kohrs, Mark Imhoff, Tom Mauser, Gail Hoffman, Marissa Robinson, Tom Mauser, Dave Krutsinger, and Dave Averill. Regional Transportation Directors: Kerrie Neet, Johnny Olson, and Dave Eller. Others: Vince Rogalski, STAC Chairman; Steve Cook, DRCOG; Randy Baumgartner, Parsons Brinkerhoff; Craig Secrest, Highstreet Consulting; Jeff Kullman, Adkins; and Dan Grunig, Bicycle Colorado.

• Meeting Minutes: Minutes were approved for the Dec. 20, 2012 meeting of the Transit and Intermodal Committee and for the Feb. 20, 2013 meeting of the Statewide Plan Committee.

• Revenue Scenarios: Staff presented an additional revenue scenario the Statewide Plan Committee requested last month showing the projections used in developing the “baseline” for state revenue projections and the Congressional Budget Office forecast for federal revenue. This Scenario #4 assumes a 1% increase in MAP-21 level revenues from 2016-2020 including general fund transfer, and for 2021-2040 the federal revenues are adjusted to reflect the Congressional Budget Office forecast and general fund transfers held constant. Staff requested guidance on inclusion of SB -09-228 funds. Discussion was that 228 is in current law and if not included we could not plan for the use of these funds. The Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC) recommended including SB09-228 revenues. Commissioners unanimously approved the staff recommendation to accept Scenario #4 with the addition of SB 09-228 transfers beginning in FY 2016.

• Overall Funding Program Recommendations for FY 2015 and Beyond: MAP-21 made changes to Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) programs, and created the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) that combines Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS), part of Scenic Byways, Recreational Trails, and Transportation Enhancements but with reduced funding compared to previous years. Staff recommended and the Commission concurred that for FY 2015 and beyond, allocations specific to the funding programs would be developed as part of the overall Statewide Plan and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process where program

2

distributions are identified to ensure fiscal constraint. It was clarified that the decisions for FY 14 did not set a precedent for future years. This process will be conducted in 2013 in coordination with planning partners. The schedule will allow for definition of an approach for FY 2015 as well as for the next STIP and Plan, which begins with 2016.

• Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS): Under MAP-21 SRTS is included within the TAP funds. Thirty-seven organizations submitted letters asking CDOT to continue bicycle education funding at $750,000 a year. One commissioner pointed to development entirely with private money of 50 miles of bike-pedestrian trails in the Durango areas as a model for bicycling and pedestrian advocate groups. There was general discussion about the merits of the SRTS program but questions about CDOT’s future role in this area. Commissioners unanimously approved the two staff recommendations. One was to forward for Commission action the FY 2013 project list identified by the Advisory Committee to be funded with MAP-21 funds. The other was to recommend funding in FY 2014 with the remaining approximate $1.5M in SAFETEA-LU SRTS funds. The FY 2013 project list allocates $1.5M among seven infrastructure projects and eight non-infrastructure/education projects.

• Transportation Alternatives Program – Recreational Trails funds included in TAP are going to the Department of Natural Resources. Discussion took place about how to use the remaining $9.3M in federal TAP funds in FY 2014 to keep the program as whole as possible since many projects have already been approved using the previous Transportation Enhancement revenue allocations.

Commissioners unanimously approved the staff recommendation to distribute the TAP funds regionally based in FY 2014 by using the resource allocation formula for the former Transportation Enhancement program, keeping all areas “whole” except DRCOG, which will receive $300,000 less in federal funds. DRCOG proposed backfilling this reduction with CMAQ funds. Commissioners thanked DRCOG for its offer and agreed with this proposal.

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program – Under MAP-21, CMAQ funds are largely directed to air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas with one exception: compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling stations or electric vehicle charging stations can be funded at any location in the state. Gov. John Hickenlooper is interested in using some CMAQ money as seed money for CNG fueling stations. CNG fueling station applicants must be governmental entities, although they can partner with private entities. Staff recommends holding back about $13.2 million (the amount above the resource allocation amount) of the anticipated $37.3M in federal funds for FY 2014 until the Colorado Energy

3

Office’s statewide CNG plan can be completed. This idea is acceptable to major recipients if a decision on the funds can be made by fall of 2013. Some CMAQ recipients also said the private sector should bear a significant portion of the cost of setting up private CNG fueling stations. One commissioner said manufacturers won’t build more CNG vehicles until consumers have reasonable access to CNG fuel distribution sites, and that CNG fueling stations around the state is a good first step. Commissioners unanimously approved the staff recommendation to distribute CMAQ funds for FY 2014 to current recipients up to FY 2014 resource allocation amounts, to backfill the reduction in DRCOG TAP funds with CMAQ funds, and to hold the remainder in reserve pending further development of the statewide CNG plan, assuming a decision can be made about the use of those funds by fall 2013. A CMAQ fund distribution resolution will be prepared for Commission adoption in April. Surface Transportation Program (STP) – MAP-21 requires flexible STP funds to be obligated 50 percent within population area categories and 50 percent to be obligated at any location in the state. The compares with the SAFETEA-LU percentage breakdown of 62.5 percent to population area categories and 37.5 percent to any other area of the state. Funds that go to the urbanized areas of 200,000 or more are called STP-Metro funds. Commissioners approved the staff recommendation to administer STP funds as MAP-21 requires for FY 2014, which includes the sub-allocation of STP-Metro funds to the three Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) based on the urbanized areas over 200,000 as a percentage of the state’s population.

• Transit Asset Management and Policy Directive (PD) 14 – Division of Transit and Rail is recommending including two objectives in PD 14 relating to transit asset management (the first time transit has been included in PD 14): o Maintain the percentage of vehicles in the rural Colorado transit fleet to no less than

65% operating in Fair, Good, or Excellent condition, per Federal Transit Administration (FTA) definitions.

o By 2017, ensure that all CDOT transit grantees have Asset Management Plans in place for State or Federally funded vehicles, buildings, and equipment.

Commissioners agreed with this approach. Next steps for PD 14 is discussion of Project Delivery in May (after the April road trip) and System Performance in later months.

• Regional Commuter Bus Plan – Development of a regional commuter bus plan will continue over the next several months, with a final plan to go to the Transportation Commission for action this summer with a goal of implementation of regional commuter bus routes using 14 CDOT-owned by summer/fall 2014. CDOT proposes purchasing 14 buses at a cost of $7.5M

4

and having a contractor operate the regional commuter bus routes along I-25 and the I-70 mountain corridor. Operation of the regional commuter buses would be funded from the Statewide FASTER Transit funds at about $2.5M a year. The purpose of the discussion was to get commissioners input on these issues: purpose statement, budget and finance plan, Statewide FASTER Transit fund limitations, governance, service plan options, and type of buses. Commissioners identified these needs: a worst-case scenario for operating costs; for staff to further examine options of rolling stock ownership; and for consistent, frequent service to encourage ridership and provide a reliable alternative to private vehicles. Questions included: why CDOT isn’t pursuing capturing a portion of the recreational market along I-70; and what lessons can be learned from the discontinued FREX bus from Colorado Springs to Denver and the Greeley to Fort Collins lines that would inform the start-up of the regional commuter bus. Commissioners agreed that Statewide Transit funds should not go for operating expenses of local transit agencies; that the Transportation Commission should be the governing body for the service; and that service should be with diesel buses. CNG buses might be phased in later along the Front Range once the service is established. They also favored Scenario #2, which provides I-25 service along the Front Range and I-70 mountain corridor service. Scenario #2 would have stops in Castle Rock and in the Carbon Valley area (around Dacono) to pick up more I-25 ridership. Commissioners directed staff to look at phasing the service.

Next Steps: An analysis of fares, fare structure, and ridership will come before the Transit and Intermodal Committee at its next quarterly meeting.

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757-9011 DATE: May 6, 2013 TO: Statewide Plan Committee FROM: Debra Perkins-Smith, Director, Division of Transportation Development SUBJECT: Policy Directive 14 Purpose This memorandum summarizes the discussion planned for the Statewide Plan Committee meeting in May. Action Requested At the May meeting, staff will request input on performance measures and objectives for System Performance for Interstates and NHS Roadways, and proposed objectives for Bridges and Safety as identified in the draft Policy Directive (PD) 14.

Background MAP-21 requires States to establish performance measures and targets (objectives in draft PD 14) and allocate funds accordingly to achieve the states targets/objectives. Over the past few months, staff has provided and is continuing to provide committee members with recommendations on specific performance measures and objectives for the following goal areas:

• Safety; • Infrastructure Condition; • System Performance; • Maintenance; and • Program Delivery

Staff has also provided recommendations to committee members on additional performance measures and objectives not identified in MAP-21 to ensure that draft PD 14 encompasses and accurately reflects current Transportation Commission and Department approach for management of resources. Revised Draft Policy Directive 14 Attached is a copy of draft Policy Directive 14 which has incorporated committee member input and feedback to date. Next Steps

• Objectives for Infrastructure Condition for Highways • Measures and Objectives for System Performance related to Transit • Measures and Objectives for Program Delivery • Recommendation from SWP Committee to adopt PD 14

5/3/2013 – SWP italicized, bolded=TBD; highlighted=proposed Page 1

PD 14 – CDOT Statewide Transportation Planning

PURPOSE This policy directive provides an overall framework for the transportation planning process through which a multimodal, comprehensive Statewide Transportation Plan will be developed that optimizes the transportation system by balancing preservation and maintenance, efficient operations and management practices, and capacity improvements. PD 14 will guide allocation of resources in support of performance objectives for the Statewide Transportation Plan, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, and the annual budget. Other CDOT documents that also lay the groundwork for transportation planning are the values, vision, and mission statements in Policy Directive (PD) 2, the Transportation Commission Rules Governing the Statewide Transportation Planning Process and Transportation Planning Regions (2 CCR 601-21), and the Risk-Based Asset Management Plan mandated by the federal transportation authorization bill. PD 14 will be reviewed and updated or reaffirmed with each Plan update cycle. This Policy Directive includes:

• Goals; • Performance measures and objectives; and • Planning principles.

GOALS CDOT transportation goals guide development of the multimodal Statewide Transportation Plan and will be used for measuring and reporting on system performance objectives after plan adoption. The goals are: • SAFETY – Reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries and work toward zero deaths for all users.

• INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION – Preserve the transportation infrastructure condition to ensure safety

and mobility at a least life cycle cost.

• SYSTEM PERFORMANCE – Improve system reliability and reduce congestion, primarily through operational improvements and secondarily through the addition of capacity. Support opportunities for mode choice.

• MAINTENANCE – Annually maintain CDOT’s roadways and facilities to minimize the need for

replacement or rehabilitation.

• PROGRAM DELIVERY – Implement CDOT’s construction and maintenance programs according to planned budget and schedule.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY DIRECTIVE PROCEDURAL DIRECTIVE

Subject Statewide Transportation Planning

Number 14.0

Effective

XX/XX/12

Supersedes

03/20/08

Originating office

Transportation Commission


PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND OBJECTIVES Performance objectives help CDOT allocate funds effectively and describe how CDOT measures success in five areas: safety, infrastructure condition, system performance, maintenance, and project delivery. The budget categories that are used to fund each area are included.

1. SAFETY: Budget Categories: Maintain, Maximize, Expand

MEASURES: • Number of fatalities • Fatalities per VMT • Number of serious injuries • Serious injuries per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) • Economic impact of crashes

OBJECTIVES: • Achieve a five-year annual average reduction of 12 in the number of fatalities. • Achieve a five-year annual average fatality rate of 1.00 per 100 million VMT. • Achieve a five-year annual average reduction of 100 in the number of serious injuries. • Achieve a five-year annual average serious injury rate of 25 per 100 million VMT. • Reduce the economic impact of crashes annually by 1%.

2. INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION: Budget Category: Maintain

A. Bridges

MEASURES:

• Condition of total NHS bridges (state highways and locally owned) • Condition of NHS state highway bridges • Condition of state highway bridges • Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Goals for bridges

OBJECTIVES: • Maintain the percent of NHS bridge total deck area that is not structurally deficient at or

above 90%. • Maintain the percent of NHS state highway bridge total deck area that is not structurally

deficient at or above 90%. • Maintain the percent of state highway total bridge deck area that is not structurally deficient

at or above 90%. • Meet bridge goals in the Risk-Based Asset Management Plan.

B. Highways

MEASURES: • Pavement condition of the Interstate System. • Pavement condition of the state highway NHS, excluding Interstates. • Pavement condition on the total NHS (awaiting federal guidance). • Pavement condition of state highway non-NHS roadways.


• Pavement condition of the state highway system.

OBJECTIVES:

• Maintain pavement condition level of ___ % Good and Fair Drivability Life for Interstates. • Maintain pavement condition level of __% Good and Fair Drivability Life for state

highway NHS, excluding Interstates. • Maintain pavement condition level of___ % Good and Fair Drivability Life on the total

NHS. (Placeholder; to be revised after federal guidance issued.) • Maintain pavement condition level of __% Good and Fair Drivability Life for state

highway non-NHS roadways. • Maintain pavement condition level of __% Good and Fair Drivability Life for the state

highway system.

Note: Drivability standards for condition assessment vary between highway classifications, with Interstates having the highest CDOT drivability standards.

C. Other Roadway Assets

MEASURE:

• Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Goals (for culverts, tunnels, rockfall mitigation, and walls)

OBJECTIVES: • Meet Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Goals

D. Transit

MEASURE: • Transit Asset Condition

OBJECTIVES:

• Maintain the percentage of vehicles in the rural Colorado transit fleet to no less than 65% operating in fair, good, or excellent condition, per Federal Transit Administration definitions.

• By 2017, ensure that all CDOT transit grantees have Asset Management Plans in place for state or federally funded vehicles, buildings and equipment.


3. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE:

Budget Categories: Maximize, Expand, Pass-Through Funds/Multi-Modal Grants

A. Interstates, NHS and State Highway system MEASURES:

• Interstate Performance – Planning Time Index for congested sections of the Interstates • NHS Performance – Planning Time index for congested corridors on the NHS system not

including Interstates • Traffic Congestion – Annual hours of delay in congested corridors on the State Highway

system • Incident clearance times

OBJECTIVES:

• Attain a Planning Time Index of ________ or less for congested sections and time periods of the Interstates.

• Attain a Planning Time Index of ________ or less for congested sections and time periods of NHS roadways, not including Interstates.

• Maintain travel time delay on congested state highway corridors at or below ________% of annual travel time.

• Reduce incident clearance times by _____ % per year.

B. Transit MEASURES:

OBJECTIVES:

4. MAINTENANCE: Budget Category: Maintain

MEASURES:

• Level of Service (LOS) for snow and ice removal • Overall Maintenance Level of Service (MLOS) for the state highway system

OBJECTIVES:

• Maintain an LOS B grade for snow and ice removal. • Maintain an overall MLOS B- grade for the state highway system.


5. PROGRAM DELIVERY

Budget Category: Deliver

MEASURES: OBJECTIVES:


PLANNING PRINCIPLES The planning principles describe how CDOT conducts business in carrying out the statewide transportation planning process.

CUSTOMER FOCUS Improve customer service and satisfaction by focusing on the priorities identified in periodic customer surveys. Strengthen transparency and accountability by ensuring the public has multiple ways of learning about and participating in multimodal transportation planning and regional and statewide transportation decision making.

PARTNERSHIPS Collaborate with CDOT planning partners to build consensus for the integration of local, regional and statewide transportation priorities in the multimodal Statewide Transportation Plan and to reach data-based multimodal transportation planning solutions. Partner with other agencies and the private sector to leverage resources and to augment public funds. PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING Use a performance-based planning and programming approach in developing a corridor-based multimodal Statewide Transportation Plan. This data-driven approach in making investment and policy decisions will help achieve targets for national performance goals. Needs assessments to identify and analyze corridor transportation capacity, reliability, and maintenance needs and strategies for both the 10-year and 20-year planning horizons are an important element. FINANCIAL PLANNING In cooperation and consultation with CDOT planning partners, and in recognition of declining revenues and increasing costs, develop reasonable Revenue Forecasts for the planning horizon and Resource Allocation that optimize the use of funds in addressing critical transportation needs. Undertake financial scenario planning in order to be prepared for different levels of future funding for different time periods of the Plan. Investigate alternative transportation funding to identify the potential impact upon the transportation system, as well as opportunities associated with various financing mechanisms. ECONOMIC VITALITY Recognizing that Colorado’s transportation system constitutes a valuable resource and a major public and private investment that directly affects the economic vitality of the state, enhance Colorado’s economic competitiveness by supporting measures that facilitate freight movement and promote state, regional and local economic goals. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Incorporate social, economic, and environmental concerns into the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of a state multimodal transportation system. Support coordinated decision making that balances transportation, land and resource use, and quality of life needs. Promote a transportation system that minimizes impacts to and encourages preservation of the environment, and follows the CDOT Environmental Stewardship Guide. Provide a sustainable transportation system that meets existing needs without compromising the ability to provide for the future. This PD shall be reviewed with each plan update cycle, but no later than March 2018.

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Transportation Development 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757-9011 DATE: April 29, 2013 TO: SW Plan Committee of the Transportation Commission FROM: Debra Perkins-Smith, Director, Division of Transportation Development SUBJECT: TPR Outreach for the SW Transportation Plan

Purpose: This memorandum summarizes the plans for TPR outreach on the Statewide Transportation Plan to occur between mid- May and early August 2013. Action Requested: None. Information on the proposed process and the planned schedule for presentation of recommendations to the Commission. Background: CDOT has begun work on the new Statewide Transportation Plan. The Statewide Transportation Plan will identify a vision for Colorado’s multimodal transportation system across a range of revenue scenarios, from declining to additional revenues and will include a ten-year strategic analysis of Colorado’s transportation needs. The Plan will also incorporate Regional Transportation Plans for each TPR. As part of this process, CDOT will be working with our stakeholders to identify project priorities that could be funded should additional revenues become available, including through a possible ballot measure. To accomplish this, each TPR will be holding two meetings between the end of May and early August to review regional data, discuss transportation needs, regional priorities, and identify key projects. In an effort to build upon last year’s Colorado Blueprint initiative, CDOT is partnering with the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) to invite key business community leaders to participate in TPR meetings over the summer, and to help provide perspective on the types of transportation improvements that could support economic development. DTD is coordinating this effort with the CDOT Regions, the Office of Policy & Government Relations, and the Division of Transit & Rail. A parallel but separate effort is underway to work with the MPO’s so that they may also put forward their priorities for any potential ballot initiative that may occur. Next Steps: DTD is working with the Statewide Plan consultant team and the CDOT Regions to develop presentations and other materials for the upcoming meetings. CDOT Regions are currently in the process of scheduling meetings- all but a few dates have been identified (see attached schedule of meetings).

Statewide Transportation Plan - TPR Outreach Meetings - Summer 2013

as of May 3, 2013

Central Front Range TPR

• June 17 (El Paso County Bldg., 3725 Akers Dr., Co Spgs) • July 29 (Location TBD)

Eastern TPR

• June 10 10 AM (Washington County Events Center, 551 West 2nd, Akron) • July 8 10 AM (Limon)

Gunnison Valley TPR

• June 25 (Montrose) • July 30 (Location TBD)

Intermountain TPR

• June 12 10 AM (Location TBD) • July 26 10 AM (Eagle County Building, 500 Broadway, Eagle)

Northwest TPR

• June 7 10 AM (Centennial Hall, 124 10th St., Steamboat Springs) • July 25 10 AM (Centennial Hall, 124 10th St., Steamboat Springs)

San Luis Valley TPR

• May 30 1:00 PM (Alamosa County Offices, 8900 Independence Way, Alamosa) • July/early August date pending

South Central TPR

• May 30 1 PM (Trinidad) • July 25 1 PM (Trinidad)

Southeast TPR

• May 22 1 PM (Lamar) • July 24 1 PM (Lamar)

Southwest TPR

• May 31 9 AM (CDOT Maintenance Facility, 20581 Highway 160 West, Durango) • July/early August date pending

Upper Front Range TPR

• June 6 1 PM (Location TBD) • July/early August date pending

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Transportation Development 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757-9011 DATE: April 29, 2013 TO: SW Plan Committee of the Transportation Commission FROM: Debra Perkins-Smith, Director, Division of Transportation Development SUBJECT: Program Distribution Process

Purpose: This memorandum summarizes the discussion planned for the SW Plan Committee of the Transportation Commission on May 15, 2013 regarding the Program Distribution Process, formerly referred to as the Resource Allocation (RA) Process. Action Requested: Provide comment on the proposed process and the planned schedule for presentation of recommendations to the Commission. Background: In the past, and with each Plan update cycle, staff has prepared charts with total allocations of anticipated revenues by program and by Regions for the time period of the Plan and of the STIP (last version covered 2008-2035 Plan and 2008- 2017 STIP). Detailed information was also provided for each of the MPO’s over 200,000 (TMA’s). The charts were structured by “investment category” which included System Quality, Mobility, Safety, and Program Delivery as well as for each individual budget level program. The last resource allocation was done in June, 2010 and was an amendment to the 2035 Plan allocation done in December, 2006. Based on the revenue forecast numbers, future allocation estimates are developed in order to support a fiscally constrained long range plan, which is required by Federal regulation for MPO’s and by State law for CDOT. Given the emphasis of MAP-21 on performance measurement and a risk-based asset management plan, and the need to examine investment priorities within the context of the statewide system, staff is proposing a modified approach to developing future allocation estimates. This approach, called Program Distribution, would identify the level of forecast revenue to be assigned to each of the public friendly budget categories of Maintain, Maximize and Expand for the duration of the Plan as well as to the major programs such as surface treatment, maintenance, bridge, ITS, operations, transit, and others based on funding levels needed to achieve future performance or condition objectives as outlined in Policy Directive 14 and to meet Asset Management Plan goals. These are estimates for planning purposes and would be updated with each Plan/STIP cycle, which is normally every 4 years.

The Program Distribution process would also address funds that are suballocated to MPO’s per Federal requirement and formulas for regional distribution of program funds such as TAP or CMAQ, For the STIP years (years 1-8) and for project planning purposes the distribution amounts would be shown for each individual program in each year. For the remaining years of the Plan time horizon (years 9-25), the distribution would be shown as a combined amount for each program for that time period. In order to begin this process, a subcommittee of STAC has been formed and will meet starting on May 10 to work on options and recommendations for Program Distribution in support of the SW Plan development. This is similar to the structure used for development of STAC recommendations for revenue forecast recommendations. The programs to be discussed during the first couple of months include TAP and CMAQ. Next Steps: The anticipated schedule for this process is May – September so that STAC recommendations can be presented to Commission in the fall. The Program Distribution should be completed by November, 2013 in order to meet schedules for financial information needed for Plan development by the MPO’s and CDOT.

COLORADO BRIDGE ENTERPRISE Memorandum

Colorado Bridge Enterprise 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222

DATE: May 3, 2013

TO: Bridge Enterprise Board of Directors

FROM: Tim Harris, CBE Chief Engineer Josh Laipply, CDOT Bridge Engineer

SUBJECT: Bridge Prioritization Plan Update

BRIDGE ENTERPRISE WORKSHOP The workshop will provide the CBE Board of Directors with an update regarding the development and implementation of the Bridge Prioritization Plan. The Prioritization Plan serves as an objective scoring system whereas both quantitative and qualitative criteria are taken into consideration to determine which FASTER eligible bridge(s) represent the best use of available funding. All current un-programmed bridges and future FASTER eligible bridges will be scored and assigned a numerical value (or ranking) that can be compared to each other to ensure that available funding is being applied to the most relevant structure. The workshop shall address the following topics:

Survey questionnaire and survey data results. Establishment of scoring worksheet and associated weighting of major-criteria and sub-criteria. Development of the Prioritization Plan Logic Summary and corresponding selection workflow

diagram. Testing of the scoring worksheet using current FASTER eligible bridges to ensure that criteria

weighting system is advancing structures commensurate with expected results. Review of sample test results. Reclassification of current un-programmed bridges.

In support of this workshop, the following attached documents shall be reviewed:

Prioritization Plan Logic summary Survey data results Scoring worksheet and scoring criteria weighting breakdown Selection workflow diagram Sample test results

Colorado Bridge Enterprise

Prioritization Plan - Logic Summary

April 23, 2013

Introduction

The Prioritization Plan is a tool to aid decision-makers in establishing which projects are best suited to be programmed by meeting CDOT’s and Bridge Enterprise’s goals. The process is a means to help generally prioritize and rank structures in order of importance based on the quantitative and qualitative factors. The prioritization plan converts these factors for each structure to weighted numerical values. The combination of factors will determine a final score for each structure. These scores rank structures in the program in a consistent method and help the Bridge Enterprise allocate resources in a more effective, transparent manner.

Definitions

Bridge Designation:

Structurally Deficient is used to describe a bridge that has one or more structural defects that require attention.

Functionally Obsolete is used to describe a bridge that is no longer compliant by design to the current code. Examples of functionally obsolete include: not having enough lanes to accommodate traffic flow, inadequate shoulder width, etc.

Sufficiency Rating: Bridge sufficiency is a method of evaluating highway bridge data by calculating four separate factors to obtain a numeric value that is indicative of a bridge’s ability (sufficiency) to remain in service. The four factors include: structural adequacy and safety, serviceability and functional obsolescence, essentiality for public use and special reductions. The result of this method is a percentage in which 100 percent would represent an entirely sufficient bridge and zero percent would represent an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge. The lower the sufficiency rating the higher the prioritization plan score.

Bridge or Structural Condition: This section examines the condition rating of different structure components. An element receives a high prioritization value if the structure is posted for reduced capacity, has insufficient vertical clearance, and/or the condition rating is considered poor or worse, or receives a score less than or equal to 4 on the Structure Inspection and Inventory Report (SIA report).

Average Daily Traffic (ADT): ADT is defined as the average number of bidirectional vehicles passing on a specific bridge in a 24-hour period. The higher the ADT is on the structure, the higher the prioritization score.

Percent Truck Traffic (%TT): The %TT definition is simply the percentage value that shows the percentage of average daily traffic that is truck traffic. The higher the %TT is on the structure, the higher the prioritization score.

Bridge Importance: This section highlights the type of traffic the structure carries, its importance locally and within the region, designation on the National Highway System (NHS) or historical standing. The structure can be more than one of the sub-criterion listed in this section.

The NHS as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the Interstate Highway System as well as other roads important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility.

Primary access to a local community will be determined by the length of detour needed during construction.

Economic strategic corridor is defined as a corridor that is deemed important to movement of freight, tourism, agriculture, oil and gas, etc. and is officially designated by the CDOT Division of Transportation Development (DTD) office.

Historical significance is determined if the structure is on the Historic Bridge List or candidate. Significant pedestrian or bike crossing is determined by the type of service for the on-system

bridge and through discussions with the region.

Economic Factors/Impacts: This section examines the cost-benefit of completing a particular bridge by comparing rehabilitation versus replacement, the economy of scale by combining the structure with a companion bridge or roadway improvement, and/or rehabilitation or replacing a structure that has significant long-term maintenance or interim repair costs. This section will need the most discussion with the region to determine what funds the region can contribute to work outside of Bridge Enterprise and what their needs are.

Other Factors or Issues: Factors other than the current criteria and sub-criteria may have a significant impact on the decision to program a project. The sub-criteria can be both positive and negative and result in up to a 5 point modification in the total point score for the subject bridge. Examples of other factors include:

Positive Factors Negative Factors Regional or local funding contributions to

project Accelerated Bridge Construction candidate Innovative Contracting Method candidate

Issues with an Intergovernmental Agreement

Limited funding resources for entire project Right-of-Way constraints Extensive environmental or railroad issues

Reference Documents: Documents referenced in this summary include: the Prioritization Plan Scoring Worksheet, the Prioritization Plan Workflow Document, the Economic Strategic Corridor Map, and the Structure Inspection and Inventory Report. These documents will be used in the implementation of the Prioritization Plan.

Prioritization Plan Survey Results

Participants – Sent to 70 people including 11 Board of Directors.

Received – 52 responded; 44 completed surveys

Participants by Affiliation/Involvement

Affiliation/Involvement Completed Survey Responses

FHWA 4.56% 2 CDOT HQ Management 11.36% 5 Regional Transportation Director 4.55% 2 CDOT Staff Bridge/Engineering 20.45% 9 Program Engine

grandavebridge.codot.gov...Steamboat Springs, District 6 . Douglas E. Aden, Vice Chairman Grand...

Documents

Transcript of grandavebridge.codot.gov...Steamboat Springs, District 6 . Douglas E. Aden, Vice Chairman Grand...